Maria Celeste H. Cadiz
Hello,
Congratulations on the productive forum just completed. Here are my two-cents’ worth responses to the guide questions:
1. What are the most urgent needs that emerged for you during the e-forum in relation to information sharing and learning processes?
Re: information sharing and learning processes, an important requisite is the participant’s time, eagerness to learn and share insights and experiences, and immediate relevance of discussions to the participant’s concerns. As well, uninterrupted or efficient connectivity is a must. Immediate feedback was an important factor. Facilitation in terms of building up the lessons/points raised, synthesizing, and reacting/interaction between and among participants was important.
2. Who do you think are the main actors interested in sharing methods and principles of work to increase the impact and of communication in natural resource management initiatives?
From the responses, it seems that practitioners in the field had the greatest interest in sharing methods and principles of work re: CNRM. However I also saw some inputs from academe, others are consultants.
3. Can you make more suggestions as to how we can share experiences and lessons in CNRM more effectively?
Using a framework for discussion, or organizing the bits of information/views shared as they build up, would be a useful tool for synthesizing the contributions. This may require active involvement and intervention by a facilitator.
4. Are you aware of other initiatives to facilitate information sharing about CNRM? If yes, please list them and comment on what you see as their main strengths and weaknesses.
IDRC’s Isang Bagsak (www.isangbagsak.org) is one such initiative. However, participating teams are pre-selected and have exclusive access to the forum. We are just about to commence implementing such a forum with three teams in Southeast Asia and this will be a learning experience for us. Perhaps those who participated in the pilot with Guy Bessette and Chin Saik Yoon can best comment on its strengths and weaknesses.
5. What, in your opinion are the main things to be gained from improving the flow and sharing of CNRM information and experiences?
As hinted by the guide questions provided and the contributions, theory-building may be an outcome of such an exchange. However, the process may be designed as a deliberate research process grounded on a theoretical tradition.
6. What specific things do you think can be done to improve the flow of information and experience sharing.
This would perhaps require preliminary work on posing researchable problems in CNRM, maybe even attempting to frame a research agenda in CRNM. The possible outcomes can be as many as the minds who would find questions in CNRM needing answers. The theoretical traditions can be varied (of course, a researcher would choose and limit him/herself to only one or a few probably compatible ones, and compatible with his/her frame at a time).
Anyway, given a research framework, the exchange can be facilitated in a way that a specific, given research agenda is addressed at at time. That is, the guide questions will have to be geared towards addressing the particular research agenda. Some participants may be able to contribute in certain exchanges while others may be better able in others, depending on their experience and insights in the particular research area in focus.
Al Santos
Building a common "language" or vocabulary amongst CNRM practitioners, I think, is a need that may enable us to communicate and listen more effectively to each other.
I observed that in the e-forum, participants were sometimes speaking (and debating) about the same cat. And this is positive because it indicates that we are moving towards a common ground. But sometimes we fail to recognize that while we are viewing and articulating ideas and issues from varying perspectives (or lenses), we are actually looking at common concerns.
A common language can evolve and emerge from fruitful and continuing processes of sharing information and experiences, dialogue, debate and interaction among colleagues. In turn, this may create richer ground for us to productively learn from, harness and build on each other’s gains and achievements.
Ester Zulberti
Dear Colleagues,
Firstly, I think that the e-forum on communication and NRM has been very interesting and useful and showed great enthusiasm on the part of the participants.
Secondly, during the forum it has emerged that there is a need to establish information sharing mechanisms about the application of communication for development to specific NRM aspects and to strengthen the capacities to NRM field projects. We now need to respond to the increasing demand to provide support to ongoing processes, to strengthen local capacities enhancing experts and institutions through quick and flexible mechanisms. Timely information and reflections about ongoing communication initiatives as well as the use of methods and tools to specific NRM aspects can make a difference both in field as well as at the institutional level. I consider that it would be useful to evaluate the opportunity of developing an internet based information mechanism, to allow communication practitioners and environmental/NRM programmes and institutions to learn from ongoing field experiences in NRM focusing on examples, and how to do it. It should also aim at encouraging the collaboration between communication projects, centers and specialists, and institutions which work in the environment/NRM sector. This effort should be complementary with the already existing (e.g.. Isang Bagsak and others), and be demand driven.
I feel that our discussion can could eventually help in evaluating the need for establishing this mechanism, if and how.
I look forward to your opinions
Ricardo Ramirez
Dear all: Here are some inputs.
1. What are the most urgent needs that emerged for you during the e-forum in relation to information sharing and learning processes?
Finding a balance between principles that apply universally, and the need to respond to local conditions. As practitioners we achieve this balance through practice and apprenticeship, yet it remains challenging to help others learn their way into this field and find their own balance. I sense that we need mechanisms to help practitioners learn their way into this field, and complementary mechanisms to inform decision makers about the importance of this profession and the unique features of its practice.
2. Who do you think are the main actors interested in sharing methods and principles of work to increase the impact and of communication in natural resource management initiatives?
In my experience there are key groups: 1) natural resource policy makers and managers who are unaware about the importance and potential of communication; 2) natural resource policy makers and managers who are aware about the importance but need more evidence of impact to convince others and maintain confidence; 3) natural resource managers, communication practitioners and field staff who need case studies, methodologies and critical reflection from practice.
3. Can you make more suggestions as to how we can share experiences and lessons in CNRM more effectively?
Country focus: if different agencies maintain an updated list of project activities and contacts in any given country, then the stakeholders -from groups 2 and 3 abovecan use that resource to avoid duplicating efforts (baseline studies, identification of consultants and local media organizations). Sectoral focus: as above, but with a focus on communication strategies by sector (water, extension, health, etc.)
The hardest part in this is to create incentives for all to keep the database updated.
4. Are you aware of other initiatives to facilitate information sharing about CNRM? If yes, please list them and comment on what you see as their main strengths and weaknesses. What matters most to me is what the information sharing is for. Networking around concrete products or activities is often more useful than openended networking.
5. What, in your opinion are the main things to be gained from improving the flow and sharing of CNRM information and experiences? Creating communities of practice around concrete, shared objectives.
6. What specific things do you think can be done to improve the flow of information and experience sharing. More face-to-face events, whenever possible, to get insights and constructive critiques on specific communication plans or products. I have had my work peer reviewed in different countries, and thought the feedback can be painful... it is most often a tool to improve the work we do and avoid duplication or efforts.
Silvia Balit
Dear all,
I really enjoyed the forum, and I think it was because it was small, focused and short. There was also excellent facilitation.
With regard to the follow up, although the need for information sharing and learning processes specifically related to CNRM clearly emerged, I agree with Ricardo that it is difficult for one mechanism to serve the needs of different stakeholders including policy makers, managers and communication practitioners in the field, as well as national and international institutions. We need different mechanisms for different groups of actors. The more one can focus on common needs and objectives, specific themes, projects and activities, responding to local conditions, the more chances there are that the sharing of information and experiences will be useful and that the network will keep going. There is a lot of fatigue these days with wide, global and open-ended discussion lists. If I were to select a priority, I would start with a network for communication practitioners at field level, with a country or regional focus, making use of already existing initiatives where they exist. A global network, such as the Communication Initiative, could then share the more important results on a wider basis. The forum also identified a number of guidelines/principles or essential fundamentals as described so aptly by Maria Protz, which are the result of lessons learned in many years of practical experience in the field. It would be useful to put these together in a kind of Vademecum for field staff. The Journal mentioned by Ian Servaes is another new and useful channel, bringing together practitioners and academics.
Decision makers would require another mechanism and other channels. The need to advocate for communication with policy makers is an old but continuing and pressing problem: it requires hard evidence of successful initiatives, impact and lessons learned. We must be able to prove what we preach if we are to convince policy makers of the importance of communication in natural resource management.
Another important issue which emerged from the forum is the need to tackle training and capacity building of professional communicators, at all levels. This is already being addressed, for example by the Rockefeller Foundation, and by several universities (Ian Servaes mentioned a post graduate course the University of Queensland is offering starting in 1994), but we do not know enough about what exists and what are the opportunities for trainees and students from developing countries. There is a lot yet to be learned by sharing curricula and training materials, in addition to starting new initiatives at different levels. Academic institutions also have an important role to play in action research and in systematising lessons learned.
Although a great deal can be achieved through networking and on-line communication, like Ricardo I believe in face-to face events, whenever possible. They are useful not only for brainstorming, but also to plan and gain support for specific communication projects to meet some of the pressing needs identified during this Forum.
Ketline Adodo
Dear Colleagues,
It’s a pleasure to (virtually) meet again.
WHAT ARE THE MOST URGENT NEEDS?
Time - Facilitation was (during the just finished discussion forum) and will be most crucial to help participants keep in focus and to canalise/organise ideas within a well-structured framework
LOOKING AHEAD
The following approach could be considered:
1) Identifying issues/themes: An observatory unit would have the responsibility to identify emerging trends, reference work, outstanding publications in the areas of media theory and CNR practise. This information will be submitted to the group for discussion according to a pre-established format.
Sometimes, a subject matter specialist or interesting personality could be invited to join and intervene in the process.
2) Establishing a discussion Agenda: The group could agree on a list of themes to discuss on a quarterly or yearly basis. This would provide more time for each member to do some research, try out things in his own field and immediate environment at least monitor more closely certain aspects relevant to the group discussion. I don’t know of the representativity of the group but some research work could indeed be envisioned
3) Discuss the use of outcomes: It is also important to discuss of the use of the outcomes of this exercise in terms of who and how. If it’s to facilitate work for the 27 or the 80 of us, that’s a good cause. But I believe our effort is aimed at reaching main actors beyond our circle.
Press releases? This might sound too authoritative since we don’t have any formal mandate. We could imagine some informal notes of the type: "Just to let you know" "would you believe that". Something like the "Environment Minute" that could be dropped through the e-mail of (many) well-targeted partners.
WHO ARE THE MAIN ACTORS?
I would go beyond the scope of the group to target, among others, two key actors:
POLICY MAKERS
There is an intended hierarchy within government structures. In Africa, generally, the Ministry of Environment doesn’t count among the high-ranking ones. Indeed, in many countries the ministry of Environment together with the Ministry of Culture share the foldaway seats in the government playing field. This of course has budgetary implications.
Very often, Environment and Tourism are under the same Ministry. There are two sectors that (to say the least) don’t necessarily go together in terms of objectives and impact. The "tourism link" makes the Environment Ministry sound rather like a Ministry of leisure. Many people don’t know what they are they are in for or what they are up to. In any case, the Ministry of Agriculture, when it exists, usually has precedence over the Ministry of Environment. Of course, agriculture contributes for one quarter to the developing countries Gross Domestic Product!
CNRM should address specifically technical advisers from the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment and Industry. They are the thinking hands of their Ministers who usually voice the viewpoints of their speechwriters.
CHILDREN
Change in the area of natural resource management is in keeping with long-term development plan. In the long-tem perspective, the children come first. Children are the actors of the future. How to proceed so that the NRM concern can become a reflex, an obsession, a passion? Develop in our children the sense of belonging and responsible ownership vis-à-vis the environment. That’s where arts education should come in, especially Poetry.
WHAT COULD BE DONE TO IMPROVE THE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND EXPERIENCE SHARING?
Alleviate time constraint: provide more time for participants to reflect on the proposed questions/themes.
HOW CAN WE SHARE EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS MORE EFFECTIVELY?
I don’t think there is or will be more effective way to communicate other than faceto- face meeting. Sometime during the process a real meeting would be necessary.
Looking forward to hearing from you all,
Ismail Khan
Dear friends, some little comments,
1. What are the most urgent needs that emerged for you during the e-forum in relation to information sharing and learning processes?
Need to define and synchronize understanding of NRM Communication in a local, regional and global context.
Need to initiate a concerted efforts (through a programme/project) to stimulate more debate and distil learning from communication related professionals to articulate NRMC in a more participatory method.
Need for communication people to communicate with each other more often - a new focused, dedicated and institutionalised contact group for NRMC
2. Who do you think are the main actors interested in sharing methods and principles of work to increase the impact and of communication in natural resource management initiatives?
Mainly the development sector, but also people in policy, politics, businesses, media, art, INGOs, CBOs...
3. Can you make more suggestions as to how we can share experiences and lessons in CNRM more effectively?
By networking or providing a sustainable platform for participants of this forum or may be creating an INTEREST GROUP/ROUNDTABLE/UNION/ NETWORK on NRMC, with a focus on both theory and practice, by fostering more understanding, interest and capacity among the group, and by focusing on field level NRMC learning and exposures...
4. Are you aware of other initiatives to facilitate information sharing about CNRM? If yes, please list them and comment on what you see as their main strengths and weaknesses.
Specifically NRM Communication?, not really..
5. What, in your opinion are the main things to be gained from improving the flow and sharing of CNRM information and experiences?
Obviously, my communication goal remain efficient and sustainable natural resource management (conservation/development..!), for today and tomorrow..
6. What specific things do you think can be done to improve the flow of information and experience sharing.
An ‘international conference’ or series of regional meetings and study visits of success stories to start with...
Titus Moetsabi
Dear Colleagues,
Some Comments:
1. What are the most urgent needs that emerged for you during the e-forum in relation to information sharing and learning processes?
From the just ended discussion it was clear to me that Communication for Social Change and Development is both a behavioural science and an art, which is dynamic. As such, the major need was to appreciate its theoretical and practical dimensions and contexts. These dimensions affect communication interventions positively or negatively in developed and developing countries alike. The major question is how does this appreciation come about? It comes about through theoretical and practical training coupled with apprenticeship. In transitional economies in the South, this training for the past 20 years has been very limited. On the ground, one continues to see ‘classical’ errors if one compares what is going on against the backdrop of guidelines and frameworks that are self-empowering to communities. Whether its face to face or on-line training in communication for social change and development, it would make a major contribution to skills development.
There is also a suspicion by development practitioners in communication, of not wanting to collaborate with commercial communications. A guide of guilt in rubbing with ‘capitalist communications’. A lot of communication gaps in transitional economies in the South can be filled by collaborating with marketing, advertising, and public relations private sector initiatives. However, there is a need for orienting our counterparts in private communications into social communications methodologies.
More interactive sharing needs to be encouraged at community level.
There is also need for sharing mechanisms between policy makers and vertically between communities, policy makers and middle managers implementing communication programs and vice versa.
2. Who do you think are the main actors interested in sharing methods and principles of work to increase the impact and of communication in NRM?
In Zimbabwe and many developing countries we have CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources) which aims at sustainable utilisation of natural resources. Such a program fills a gap where there are no organised institutions of communities to deal with community natural resources management. Other main actors are:
Interaction communities and their community based organisations,
Intermediary local and international NGOs and, their staff,
Line Ministries in Government working around natural resources management,
Nature and Wildlife societies,
Private safari operators, hotels, tour operators, tanneries, meat processors involved in forward and backward linkages through joint ventures with communities in sustainable management programs for natural resources,
Local Leaders and key influential persons such as:
Rural District Councils,
Local Authorities,
Headmen and head women,
Traditional leaders and spirit mediums,
Chiefs,
Members of Parliament,
Local community councillors,
Village and ward committees,
Schools and School children participating in conservation clubs and activities,
National Parks authorities,
Ministry of Home Affairs or other Ministries dealing with museums and natural heritage,
Indigenous knowledge village experts,
The print, electronic, and popular culture MEDIA.
3. Can you make more suggestions as to how we can share experiences and lessons in CNRM more effectively?
Through Participatory Rural Appraisal as interpersonal communication, Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal, Stakeholder Analysis, Publications, Information Communication Technologies, Share Fares and Conferences, inter alia.
4. Are you aware of other initiatives to facilitate information sharing about CNRM? If yes, please list them and comment on what you see as their main strengths and weaknesses.
In many developing countries there is use of TV, Radio, Newspapers, local workshops, Program Evaluation and Review Meetings, Theatre, Annual Fora. There are more strengths than weaknesses. The major weakness being the inadequate documentation of experiences. We need, I concur, for example a journal that is accessible.
5. What, in your opinion are the main things to be gained from improving the flow and sharing of CNRM information and experiences?
Poverty alleviation
Containing desertification, Preserving endangered species
Sustainable environments
Attitude and behaviour change in interfacing with natural resources.
6. What specific things do you think can be done to improve the flow of information and experience sharing. 60-80% of communities in transitional economies live in rural and peri-urban areas and the majority on or below the poverty datum line. These areas have ‘weak contemporary communications’ infrastructure. The majority have no access, as most of us might be familiar with, to TV, Radio, Newspapers and the like. Either they have no electricity, or the batteries are expensive if they are available or there are low levels of literacy. Our communications and information sharing for the majority of the disadvantaged economically poor communities should use forms which are less ambitious but effective as mainstream communication channels and techniques. These forms may be:
Word of mouth,
School children,
Oraculture - poetry, song, dance, drama, storytelling, puppetry, proverbs, parables, idioms, figurative language, slogans etc.,
Local meetings such as traditional meetings at the ‘kgotla’ - the village meeting place in Botswana,
Embedding CNRM communication and information into on going other development activities. Certainly, if the above can be repackaged and shared with middle managers or policy makers or donors using TV, ICTs, Radio, Video, Newspapers, we get a bonus!
Dovetailing CNRM information onto extension staff from various Ministries or companies also works well.
Guy Bessette
Dear Chris and colleagues,
Congratulations for this effort.
I salute this initiative, and I will again stress the need for such exchanges, as other colleagues already mentioned. I also thank you for giving us the opportunity to react on the exercise. Here are some comments which i wish will be helpful.
1. E-forum.
1.1 To be frank, I found that many contributions lacked substance, and I believe it is linked to the fact that people are too busy to really get concentrated enough, but at the same time want to participate out of good faith.
Maybe a way to improve on this would be to ask interested parties to subscribe to a forum and then to consult them on the timetable, before launching the discussion. Another one would be to make it shorter and more specific in its questions.
1.2 I also believe that e-forum should be action-oriented, not just brainpicking. As an example, the discussions could have been linked to specific chapters of the book and the synthesis published as a discussion of the case-studies.
2. Case studies
2.1 In the two case studies that I visited, the description is very different from what I observed, and the same is true of the appreciation of the effort. This is normal: we all tend to present a bright side of our interventions. However it raises the issue on how to do a proper case study: we may need more to involve practitioners and researchers in a reflection on their own practices and to underline the evolution that took place, than present neutral descriptions of some interventions.
2.2 The team members of each case studies should have been participating in the discussions.
3. Reference to communication models
3.1 We all agree on the fact that there is no recipe for development communication, and this is also the case in the field of NRM. However, there are some basic principles to respect in order to achieve genuine participatory communication. Some of the models refered to do not address these principles and in consequence may not be very useful.
3.2 To avoid the kind of sterile discussions on the "right" mix, we could focus on the kind of work we want to pursue: advocacy, participatory communication, awareness-raising, community-media, etc, and derive from the experiences shared, some useful principles.
4. Link with other experiences in communication and NRM
We are also involved into a learning and networking program on participatory development communication, called Isang Bagsak. The program, which has been running for one year, is actually being developed in South-East Asia at the College of Development Communication of the University of the Philippines, and in East and Austral Africa at the SADC Centre for Communication and Development. A third implementation effort is being prepared in the Sahel with the regional office of ICRAF. It is addressed to teams (not individuals) of researchers and practitioners involved in NRM and seeks to organize a learning experience on participatory development communication based on each team’s experience and contributions.
All for now, and thanks again for organizing this stimulating activity,
Janet Feldman
Dear Friends,
Hello and thanks so much for the wonderful discussions and information in this forum! I came in rather late to the process, I think, and did not see many of the contributions, so some of what I say may have been covered already. I will be speaking as a practitioner, or even more specifically, a practitioner’s helper, as I run the international wing of a Kenyan HIV/AIDS organization, and they are the ones who implement any policies, theories, research, and programs. I provide a number of services, among them gathering info in forums such as these and doing research which can then be implemented on the ground, so this is where I am coming from in terms of my own comments.
What is most helpful for me, and what truly excites me, is hearing about the broad range of programs operating on the ground and the lessons learned from them. It is also helpful to hear the theory behind a certain practice or process, or at least the reasoning that lead to the use of the particular approach in question. Therefore what would be most useful, from my point of view, would be a sharing of what each/all of the orgs. and practitioners are doing (perhaps w/active facilitation to ensure that everyone who wants to contribute can do so in an orderly way), and also who else is involved in the forum, especially backgrounds and expertise, which might help us to understand better who is "listening", and who we are addressing.
The next step might be to have a format that follows along with the "Communications and Natural Resources Management" workbook, along the lines of "the theme", the "learning objective", and then examples of same based on actual projects (like our own, haha!). Or some kind of structure which is common to the group-learning experience, and in which practitioners can tell us about their projects, what the objectives were or are, what has worked or hasn’t and why-if they know-with theoretical experts, academicians, policymakers, and others analyzing same in terms of communications theory, research, devices, novel approaches, et al. A blend and balance of concrete projects and theme/learning-objectives, just like in the workbook, which I think is very helpful at organizing material and giving a clear, consistent picture of theory and practice. To me, there is nothing like case studies, and I think that both similarities and differences or uniqueness of projects, cultural contexts, and the like become more clear when there are "real-life" examples to work with (it also helps to know who you are working with, to a certain extent, which is why I think "introductions" and an understanding of who we are - which will hopefully be a mix of various individuals and "actors" - is important).
It would also be helpful to have urls where we might read further in terms of case studies, research, organizations and individuals who might be helpful to us, and that is something which all of us can provide, drawing upon our various disciplines, work, and experience (or there could be a moderator who would seek to do that actively). It might be helpful to have country or culture-specific info we can tap into as well, and certainly the perspectives of policymakers, potential donors, and the like, who might be needed to help implement whatever projects and/or communication strategies are being contemplated for a particular project. A listing of some communications theories and then case-studies/examples of how these have been put into practice or action would also be a helpful accompaniment to what we bring to the forum as a group.
Those are a few of the things I can think of which would make a forum like this invaluable to me and to the work we do in Kenya, as would as online "workbook", with or without an accompanying forum. With greatest thanks again for this wonderful resource, and all best wishes,
Rawya El-Dabi
Dear Colleagues,
It is great meeting you again to discuss how to follow-up on the SUCCESSFUL Discussion Forum we had. Sorry for the delayed intervention due to the fact that I was in a field trip in a remote area with no access to internet!!
Re Question 1:
I felt that the need for further exchange of lessons learned and steps for undertaking CNRM initiatives especially at the policy level emerged from the forum. In the Isang Bagsak workshop that took place in the Philippines last August, Mr. Chin Yoon recommended a practical way for exchanging experiences. He suggested that each of the communication professionals can note down the tools/methodologies and lessons learned from implementing the different communication processes such as: mobilizing action, facilitating listening, facilitating dialogue, managing conflict, tapping indigenous knowledge, etc... Learning how each of us manage with these different communication processes will enrich our reservoir of tools and lessons learned.
Re Question 2:
Communication practitioners (working with NGOs, international organizations and as consultants) and academic professionals are mainly the ones interested in exchanging their experiences. Practitioners will benefit by increasing their reservoir of knowledge and will be able to avoid falling in pitfalls experience by others and hence will continuously improve the quality of their work.
Academic professionals would be interested in providing their students with up-todate real life experiences to equip them with knowledge that enables them to start their career with an advanced understanding of what really takes place in the field.
Re Question 3:
Discussion Forums such as ours
e-Newsletters such as the Drum Beat
Circulation of reports, case studies, newspaper articles, etc. to a mailing list of communication practitioners
Bi-annual conferences
Exchange visits
Links to other existing networks that discuss CNRM
Re Question 4:
I agree with Cel, that Isang Bagsak is a network to which members of this forum should be linked to and Chin and Guy are the resource people who can inform us of the weaknesses and strengths of Isang Bagsak electronic network.
Re Question 5:
Benefits are:
Ability to theorize
Improve quality of work
Opportunity for joint activities/initiatives
Possibility of utilizing the expertise of communication practitioners in the CNRM network as consultants in different CNRM initiatives
Research topics for post-graduate studies
Project ideas
Re Question 6:
Steps can be:
Periodically conduct similar discussion forums
Urge communication practitioners to provide their experiences periodically
Organize any of the suggestions presented in the answer to question 3.
Looking forward to continuous exchange of experiences and GOOD LUCK for us all!
Paolo Mefalopulos
1. What are the most urgent needs that emerged for you during the e-forum in relation to information sharing and learning processes? I agree with Ricardo who identified the need to find a balance between theoretical principles who apply universally and the need to contextualize them for local applications. In my experience this is a major challenge for us all. Theoretical considerations in this field are often too simplistic or too idealistic to reflect the complexity of the field reality. There is a need for guidelines combining these two dimensions.
2. Who do you think are the main actors interested in sharing methods and principles of work to increase the impact and of communication in natural resource management initiatives? Communication scholars, practitioners and managers of NR projects. The latter are more of an audience to be "cultivated" before they could play a more active part in this exchange. In many ways, managers and decision-makers of international organizations should be the primary audience.
3. Can you make more suggestions as to how we can share experiences and lessons in CNRM more effectively? Here, it is not enough to create networks to facilitate the flow of information, but there is a need to "package" information in a usable form. I am thinking of case studies, report on specific issues concerning NR or concerning specific phases (e.g. research, planning, evaluation, etc.) in addition to other more informal and unstructured exchanges (i.e. dialogue through internet and meetings) among individuals.
4. Are you aware of other initiatives to facilitate information sharing about CNRM? If yes, please list them and comment on what you see as their main strengths and weaknesses. On the side of the World Park Congress in Durban there was a meeting among representatives of a number of organizations with a global reach involved in natural resources and environmental issues. We agreed in principle to start cooperating on issues of common interest. This effort is just at the beginning stage, but it can set an interesting example to be later expanded to other partners.
5. What, in your opinion are the main things to be gained from improving the flow and sharing of CNRM information and experiences? Two major ones: increasing knowledge of CNRM among all actors and facilitating the establishment of a common language, i.e. understanding, among all actors. As a side effect, improving the flow about information and experiences, if including success stories, could also help promoting this approach with managers and decision makers.
6. What specific things do you think can be done to improve the flow of information and experience sharing. I agree with Silvia when she highlights that there is some fatigue with endless discussions not followed up by action, at the same time these discussions provide one of the few forum in which to exchange ideas/experiences and become familiar with what others are doing. To move a step further I repeat what I said above. It is not enough to ensure a forum where to have information flow, there is a need for having information flow in a usable manner. That is there is a need to have more communication oriented products and there is an even bigger need to provide guidelines on how the process for designing communication strategies. These discussions an be a useful exercise in that direction, but there is a need to establish mechanisms to ensure a more continuous flow of information and exchange of experiences, also needed to achieve "that common language among communicators" mentioned by somebody. The focus on the process is meant to provide flexible guidelines upon which to derive the basis for appropriate communication strategies. In this respect while conducting my work in a number of countries I am appreciating more and more the lessons learned with the new methodology developed in the FAO project in Southern Africa: Participatory Rural Communication Appraisal. According to my knowledge and my experience, PRCA has been, and still is, one of the first attempts to combine participatory approaches with a broader communication conception, which would result in a strategy relevant at a local level. I have some regrets about the fact that the work I am doing in this direction has not been more dialogic, also considering that many of you are not only familiar but have also been instrumental in the development of this methodology.
Waad El-Hadidy
Dear all,
I think this evaluation discussion has been the best part of the discussions. People are contributing with valuable ideas.
Here is what I think:
1. I think a more systemized way of forming synthesis is needed, otherwise it is largely based on the perception and understanding of the person doing it. One way could be to create a checklist or table prior to the discussion of anticipated possible issues that people could discuss, and then classifying where messages will fall on such typology. This guarantees analysis of contributions.
2. The main actors interested in sharing information are the practitioners utilizing development communication as part of their initiatives. These are the people who are the most at grip with the concept.
3. I agree with Cel that a framework for discussion can be useful. Participants should agree on a number of key issues to be aware of and concentrate on during the discussion. This can facilitate synthesis and meta data leading to theory building.
4. Also discussions should be based on experiences. If different programs are being simultaneously implemented around the world, then the focus should be on learning from these experiences. This would be an incentive for the practitioners to document and share what they learn. Programs and projects should be grouped for comparability purposes, so for example, a number of initiatives can be looking at giving voice to the marginalized, others to mobilizing community action, etc.
5. The main benefit from sharing experience is in concretizing the idea of development communication and making it a conscious effort. We all communicate naturally in our every day life. However, more effort is needed to draw on our innate capabilities to communicate in a more strategic way.
6. I believe face-to-face interaction needs to be coupled with online communication. When people meet in person, it makes the exchange process much richer and compels people to communicate online after associating a face with the name. Perhaps a series of study tours can enable this.
Hope this is useful. Thanks for such a well organized and intellectually stimulating endeavour.
Al Santos
I agree that policy-makers, scholars, consultants, managers and practitioners are main actors. I think we can also devise venues with appropriate processes to engage community stakeholders - village officials, leaders, elders, teachers, parents - in our dialogue and exchanges. They too would be interested in sharing methods and principles that work/ed.
Alfonso Gumucio
Chris, Warren and colleagues of this discussion list,
Sorry for not contributing earlier than today. I’ll try to briefly respond to the questions:
1. What are the most urgent needs that emerged for you during the e-forum in relation to information sharing and learning processes?
The e-forum has shown that the issues are larger than natural resource management. The most urgent need seems to be better prepared human resources for communication for development and social change. We know universities are not offering the profile of development communicator that is needed. Many projects fail to deliver because of poor strategic thinking in communication. And it is definitely not enough to do some patchwork and train practitioners during a couple of weeks or a couple of months. There is a discipline to be taken seriously. No more improvisations.
2. Who do you think are the main actors interested in sharing methods and principles of work to increase the impact and of communication in natural resource management initiatives?
The main actors seem to be the communicators, ourselves, which often gives us a sense of loneliness. We would like to see other main actors buying the approach, namely the development organisations that lack of understanding about the role of communication in natural resource management. Participation of communities in development is now part of the jargon of many development agencies, governments, NGOs, etc. However, when landing the words into concrete actions, communication for development and social change seems mostly absent, or substituted by PR or self-marketing strategies.
3. Can you make more suggestions as to how we can share experiences and lessons in CNRM more effectively?
Certainly, The Communication Initiative has become the centrepiece for exchanging information and accessing information on any issue relevant to communication for development and social change. Meeting in cyberspace for online forums such as this discussion on CNRM has proved to be very useful. However, it may be good to also meet in "meat space", particularly if it can be done close to a real, concrete programme or project that illustrates an interesting approach to communication. Real meetings, case studies, should be the initiative of development agencies that want to show their commitment to communication issues. South-to-South exchanges between Africa, Asia and Latin America should take place more often in the Third World. But also, within countries and regions, which often seem to be a world apart.
4. Are you aware of other initiatives to facilitate information sharing about CNRM? If yes, please list them and comment on what you see as their main strengths and weaknesses.
No, I’m not aware. But again, it may only be because I haven’t been searching for the information. Sometimes we suffer from an overdose of information that we are unable to process, select, utilise.
5. What, in your opinion are the main things to be gained from improving the flow and sharing of CNRM information and experiences?
Making the most of the information already available would help to better design, plan, implement and monitor CNRM programmes. However, too often information is unmanageable. Sometimes information is so abundant that it is difficult to see what is useful and what is not. You can gain a lot from reading case studies and strategic thinking. Do we have case studies on the specific issue of CNRM? Do we have time to PULL it, or would it be better if CI (for example) PUSH it on us?
6. What specific things do you think can be done to improve the flow of information and experience sharing.
Better linkages at the country level and at regional level. Sometimes we totally ignore what is going on very near us. Agencies do not communicate well among them. Being very selective should also help. Nobody has much time to read long reports. Experience sharing is fundamental through personal contacts, online discussions and visits to actual programmes. The "flow" has to be better organized to serve the purpose of feeding into concrete programmes.
